The game shouldn’t be a dating sim: thoughts on a curious cash cow

[Beta Ray Shill]

Any time I’ve posted on a related topic, it tends to explode: emotions run high around this theme. But we’re all entitled to our opinions, and steam is essentially just a pseudo-blog, where people leave their thoughts – and then are eviscerated by an angry mob.

Just joking of course. We all know that never happens.

If it’s any consolation, boredom is setting in and I’ll likely not be posting any other ‘material’ until the next patch. If even. But this is definitely a thought-provoking topic for me, and I need to get the words out of my system: I’ve been reading other forums again, and I’ve noted some contentious remarks around the dating sim aspect of BG3.
Fair warning: for those who are ‘sensitive’ to someone being strongly opposed to the notion of playersexual, then you should do your blood pressure a favour and close this post now.

What is an RPG in 2021? My personal take is that it is, and should be, what it was 20+ years ago: a game with tactical battles and, if you’re lucky, some good writing and interesting artwork.

¬Romancing characters was a small part of BG 2, I believe, but I can’t recall it being part of BG 1. I can’t recall it being part of Chrono Trigger or Story of Thor or the old FF games, outside of very light elements that were actually a part of the story. As in, they were organic to the story – the Cloud-Tifa-Aeris love triangle.

Somewhere along the line, it became lucrative for companies to market a ‘romance your companions’ feature. A dating sim, basically. I would say there’s a significant minority that want this. Therefore it would be foolish for a big company to ignore it.

The forum I mentioned talks about the shoe-horned-in nature of playersexual and that it’s not fleshed-out enough. It says certain characters are ‘straight-coded’ (a new one to me). It emphasises all characters should be ‘romantic options’. And that more conversational complexity should be added to make the dialogue less simple-minded, stilted and robotic as ‘Are you coming on to me?’, with tritely robotic yes/no mechanically constructed answers depending on X/Y/Z variables.

It also suggests that by not doing so, the LGBT community is being ‘erased’.
A true dating sim that emulates the complex, multi-faceted nature of human courtship – with all the subtle and not-so-subtle mind games, both physical and verbal, would be impossible.

This game’s ambition is so high, they could hire the entire planet’s dev and designer workforce and people would still complain that something core to the RPG experience – by which I mean combat especially – would be unsatisfactory.

Like others on the forum that I mentioned, I believe it would be a huge waste of resources to attempt to develop the dating sim aspect any further. It’s at best a side-game. And like many others, I have no interest in it as I find it odd, creepy and contrived.

I don’t want it part of my game (I paid for combat and visual artwork – I know the story will be plot-driven dross). Given the demand for playersexual, I don’t think it should be taken away – but I definitely think it needs a toggle. It’s a ‘dating sim toggle’: let’s call it what it is. It’s cringe-worthy if you don’t buy into it and have to listen to perfectly good voice actors being forced to read lines that are completely out of character, because everyone wants everyone to be ‘available’.

The ‘straight-coded’ comment made me laugh. Don’t know what it means exactly, but I guess I’m ‘straight-coded’ because I’m 100% straight. Maybe I’m a bore, but I’ve only been offered one threesome by a very good looking girl – and I nearly had a heart attack when I thought it involved the equally good looking friend in her photos (dating app). No, she said. It would be with another lad.

Talk about a buzzkill. Any attempts to get the guy out of the picture were a non-runner, so that was it for me: I said no hope in hell.

My point is that we, as a species, have a very strong, ‘fight-or-flight’ reactions to any attempt to suggest we, sexually, be something we’re not. Sexuality influences every aspect of our personal narratives. Those we find attractive, we treat differently – our dialogue changes, our ambitions change: our story changes. Those we don’t find attractive, we treat neutrally – there is no story.

I personally hate the idea of playersexual, because an already so-so BG3 story is now even more contrived, such that characters can, randomly, be twisted into cack-handed, unconvincing flirting, just because I possibly won a big battle or got their approval rating high enough.

If people want that, make it a toggle. I can’t take it seriously.

I also can’t believe this is what writing is nowadays. This is how bad it has become. Basically wish-fulfilment.

Say what you want about the game’s maturity rating, but young people will play the game. Is it ‘good’ for these young people to be led to believe that everyone is playersexual? Can young people walk outside and leave that notion behind?

If they can’t, at a minimum hurt awaits – but possibly violence too.

I believe if a character is ‘straight-coded’, they should never be anything else. Because that is reality. And all good escapism, all good fiction, reflects reality – otherwise the suspension of disbelief is destroyed.

As a straight guy, I can tell if another man has ‘good genes’, in the same way I can tell if a dog or a horse has ‘good genes’: symmetry, bone structure, strong muscle, the sheen of the fur. Logically, a healthy male animal can be worked out by all. But I greet the physical implications of a male human hitting on me with the same dread as I would a dog or horse wanting something similar.

This is ‘straight’ nature, described in impersonal, rational tones.

Go on quora, ask the question and you’ll see many gay men say they find women ‘the wrong shape’ and a ‘turn off naked’.

The writer in me couldn’t possibly ever write a story with ‘playersexual’ characters. I could write a 10,000 word essay on the complexity of the topic of sexuality, and I’d only be scratching the surface.

The point is that sexuality profoundly influences narrative, and how we talk to people: how we view them.

Straight women, for example, are extremely complex regarding who they will flirt with – and even at that, who they’ll sleep with even if they did flirt to begin with. They rarely make the first move, are very much about psychology and subtlety and they won’t be swayed by looks alone. Men are simple: looks win out.

This is in turn influences how straight men perceive themselves: we know style and gym-investment won’t win. Couple that with the fact that myself and many of my straight friends have often pitied women that they have no other options but a man. We have an extremely low opinion of our physical shape – those who think they’re hot-S**t are laughed at by both women and men alike.

We bank on our character and our words. Nothing else. The self-confessed ‘ugliest man in Ireland’ (a friend of a friend) showed us what the gift of the gab does to women, even if, like him, you look like a bug-eyed toad: he cleaned up with the best-looking girls.

Delighted them with stories and jokes and confidence and surprise. And always got laid.
To go back to that forum I mentioned, I saw another comment that straight and gay men have different relationships. I hope the above clarifies that, because yes – I agree.

We straight men go through life not thinking highly of either our looks or abilities, because women are generally repelled by any man that does. It writes our story in a very different way to gay men who – and I’ve worked with them – take pride in such things, and do indeed place them on a pedestal.

Again, I can provide quora quotes, where gay men have stated they fetishise such things. Straight women do not.

Finally, sexuality has driven almost every story, from books to film to TV, and is the core of our being. To turn it into a mechanical ‘playersexual’ artifice is to kill a story, to kill its authenticity: it’s to kill the characters and who they are, it’s to turn them into what they are not. It’s to raise false hopes for young people who think that’s what it’ll be like when they walk out the door. It’s to do a disservice to humanity’s complexity. And it’s to put another nail, as if it needs another, in the coffin of modern fiction.

[Pan Darius Cassandra]

I'm ignoring the irrelevant and unnecessary delving into your politics and perspectives on sexuality to give you the simplest possible answer to your one actual request:

Sex in BG3 is completely "opt-in". If you don't like it, or don't like it with a particular character, then just don't do it.

That's literally the only answer to your question - don't participate in the parts of the game you don't like. In BG3 sex and romance are completely optional, and if you don't want to, you will never have to see it.

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

I'm ignoring the irrelevant and unnecessary delving into your politics and perspectives on sexuality to give you the simplest possible answer to your one actual request:

Sex in BG3 is completely "opt-in". If you don't like it, or don't like it with a particular character, then just don't do it.

That's literally the only answer to your question - don't participate in the parts of the game you don't like. In BG3 sex and romance are completely optional, and if you don't want to, you will never have to see it.

Yes, the OP could have saved a lot of time by simply saying "I'd like a toggle for the sexual content" and left it at at that.

While I don't oppose such a toggle, it seems a little redundant based on what you've just said, i.e it's already an option, you just don't choose the sexual options in the dialog.

Problem solved?

[The Seraph of Tomorrow]

I must say you do make it sound like BG3 is going to end up being like Fire Emblem, but ultimately I suspect not. The romance is very much a side element which happens during the rest period / waiting time in the game.

That said, I don't think adding romance is a bad aspect of a RPG, it's ultimately a aspect of it. Unless you are strictly seeking an action / adventure game which it seems like you do.

[Beta Ray Shill]

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Yes, the OP could have saved a lot of time by simply saying "I'd like a toggle for the sexual content" and left it at at that.

Firstly, the 'OP' already suggested a toggle as a simple solution - so you obviously didn't read the post.

Secondly, sexual content is not what the post is about. Perhaps read it?

TLDR is that it's about narrative being undermined by contrived 'playersexual' devices. That don't exist in any other traditional narrative, from TV to films to books.

It's a fake, weird element of modern video games. It's bizarre and plastic - and even, based on the forum I quoted, disliked by those that subscribe to it.

I'm merely making a comment. A point. I'm not asking for it's removal - again, if you read what I wrote, you'd know I said that.

[Beta Ray Shill]

Originally posted by pandariuskairos:

I'm ignoring the irrelevant and unnecessary delving into your politics and perspectives on sexuality to give you the simplest possible answer to your one actual request

Yeah, I've heard this before from you, but what on earth are you actually talking about? Politics?

I'm talking, basically, about straights being straights and not being anything else. If the rest was too complex to comprehend.

[Beta Ray Shill]

Originally posted by Tech-Priest:

That said, I don't think adding romance is a bad aspect of a RPG, it's ultimately a aspect of it. Unless you are strictly seeking an action / adventure game which it seems like you do.

My point being it's actually not? It's a modern aspect of RPGs - as I stated, no older RPGs had this contrivance.

Like I said, people who want the 'romance' are not happy with it as is and want it to be more complicated/involved - aka, more dev-intensive.

They want what's impossible from a game, even if it had a budget of 1 billion for 'romance'.

All I did was call it as fake as the people who want 'playersexual'. And I said it's ok with me - I'm just spelling out my philosophy on why I think it's nonsense.

By saying you think I just want 'an adventure game' says to me that everything I wrote went sailing right over your head.

[littlebunnylover]

Originally posted by outofcontext:

TLDR is that it's about narrative being undermined by contrived 'playersexual' devices. That don't exist in any other traditional narrative, from TV to films to books.

OP doesn't deserve the time of day and thus I don't intend to respond to anything else in this thread, but just wanted to appreciate the humor of this comment. Like yeah, TV and films and books don't have this kind of content - because they don't have players in the first place.
It's like saying "video games shouldn't have inventory systems - I don't need to manage my inventory when I watch Lord of the Rings!"

[Beta Ray Shill]

Originally posted by littlebunnylover:

OP doesn't deserve the time of day and thus I don't intend to respond to anything else in this thread

'doesn't deserve the time of day' - yeah you don't sound emotionally upset/bitter at all there.

Reported. I'll report again tomorrow if it has to come to it. Won't say anymore. Cheers.

[Aldain]

You'd think getting banned twice and having multiple threads locked in the past couple of weeks would have sent a message.

[Beta Ray Shill]

Originally posted by Aldain:

You'd think getting banned twice and having multiple threads locked in the past couple of weeks would have sent a message.

Thanks for making my job easy.

[RealDealBreaker]

Originally posted by Aldain:

You'd think getting banned twice and having multiple threads locked in the past couple of weeks would have sent a message.

You would think that, but sure doesn't stop OP from making sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people in the real world as if all gay men or straight men or all women are a monolith. That and the not-so-lowkey homophobia (or extremely poor place to deploy hyperbole) with lines like this:

Originally posted by outofcontext:

But I greet the physical implications of a male human hitting on me with the same dread as I would a dog or horse wanting something similar.

[desrtfox071]

Originally posted by outofcontext:

Originally posted by desrtfox071:

Yes, the OP could have saved a lot of time by simply saying "I'd like a toggle for the sexual content" and left it at at that.

Firstly, the 'OP' already suggested a toggle as a simple solution - so you obviously didn't read the post.

Secondly, sexual content is not what the post is about. Perhaps read it?

TLDR is that it's about narrative being undermined by contrived 'playersexual' devices. That don't exist in any other traditional narrative, from TV to films to books.

It's a fake, weird element of modern video games. It's bizarre and plastic - and even, based on the forum I quoted, disliked by those that subscribe to it.

I'm merely making a comment. A point. I'm not asking for it's removal - again, if you read what I wrote, you'd know I said that.

Yeah I read. All excessive word after excessive word.

You did basically say "Hey, I want a toggle for the sexual content" Now, true, you also added a lot of irrelevant personal and political info. That's why I summarized it.

Also, as mentioned, you can already avoid the sexual (dating) content by simply not participating in it, though as mentioned, I wouldn't be opposed to a toggle, but I feel it might be redundant because you can already opt out.

[Yojo0o]

I'm against the idea of a toggle. Plenty of games have content that isn't universally desirable, but that doesn't mean every facet of the final product should be opt-in/opt-out. It doesn't set a great precedent, and it doesn't exactly improve the product to spend resources working on. I'm not especially interested in romance options in RPGs myself, but if I don't want to engage in them, I just ignore them. I don't especially enjoy stuff like fishing minigames or most crafting systems, so I just don't get into them in games that have them, doesn't cost me anything.

As far as playersexual vs. having each NPC with a specific sexual identity, I guess I just don't really care too much. A good DM would adjust romantic prospects for the players as appropriate, if that's a desired feature of the players. I see no reason to not let modern RPGs be the same way. I don't think a character's sexuality needs to be rigidly defined in an effective characterization.

Also, yeesh, that's a concerning amount of generalization regarding what sexuality means for your character. I don't like... any of that.

[cl656]

How does a character being player sexual ruin the character or story? And how is it my problem, if some person is stupid enough to think that courting in a video game is the same as courting in real life? Also, how does what another person does or doesn't do in a video game affect me? if someone wants to romance Astarion as a straight female, then that is their prerogative. If they want to romance Gale as a gay male character, It's none of my business. they paid for the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ game, they can do what they want in it.

[littlebunnylover]

Originally posted by outofcontext:

have to listen to perfectly good voice actors being forced to read lines that are completely out of character, because everyone wants everyone to be ‘available’

Lol I just noticed this part. I'm imagining the Larian writers holding a gun to the voice actors' heads, saying "Do it. Say the gay ♥♥♥♥."